SmackLT:propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year: http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935

Honestly though guys.. Who cares. It is one of the few interesting fark repeats that if someone missed it should get a chance to see it. It's not like this is one of those that crop up every other day.

The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it.

That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.

For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.

Don't know why Vermeer couldn't have just done a camera obscura, but tested his color palette before he started painting.

I think it's kind of similar to being under the streetlights that turn everything black and white, it's farking up what you're seeing, and even though you know it is, you can't really compensate. Since painters don't just use 1 red, 1 blue, 1 yellow, etc., if the light is farking up what you're applying, you can't get the subtle changes in color that make things look realistic.Your red will look different than what is actually there, but will look roughly the same for a couple of shades either way.

It's an interesting and arduous project but surprisingly there are quite a noticeable number of differences between the original and the reproduction considering it was so painstaking - heads looking different ways, rug patterns different etc. Not sure if it was intentional or what.

ArcadianRefugee:For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

Don't know why Vermeer couldn't have just done a camera obscura, but tested his color palette before he started painting.

I think it's kind of similar to being under the streetlights that turn everything black and white, it's farking up what you're seeing, and even though you know it is, you can't really compensate. Since painters don't just use 1 red, 1 blue, 1 yellow, etc., if the light is farking up what you're applying, you can't get the subtle changes in color that make things look realistic.Your red will look different than what is actually there, but will look roughly the same for a couple of shades either way.

drxym:It's an interesting and arduous project but surprisingly there are quite a noticeable number of differences between the original and the reproduction considering it was so painstaking - heads looking different ways, rug patterns different etc. Not sure if it was intentional or what.

I don't think that's the point. The point is if someone with no real painting skill could accomplish what was done then it is possible it was originally done that way.

I actually know an artist that can produce photo realistic paintings without any of these tricks in oil. -She's a friend's mother. She charges about $6000 a painting (at least that was the price years ago). -I've seen her reproduce a scene from memory without any references (pictures, etc.)

That being said, when she's working she *has* a picture she could reference if she wanted, but she told me she considered it cheating and admitted she had to look probably 2-3 times if she got sidetracked with something else while she was working.

She was an extreme introvert. The only reason I met her was that she overheard her son talking about me and she wanted to meet me. We went to lunch (without him and talked for hours - which seemed odd, but whatever). I guess the best way to describe the relationship was that of Sheldon and Leonard's mother (Big Band Theory), except that Leonard in this case was a law school student and an athlete that she didn't seem to have much in common with.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be a mystery or some fancy device. It's quite possible that this artist was just really good at reproducing real life in oil like my friend's mom.

SearchN:SmackLT: propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year: http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935

Honestly though guys.. Who cares. It is one of the few interesting fark repeats that if someone missed it should get a chance to see it. It's not like this is one of those that crop up every other day.

Except the one from a year ago reads like an article about the study into Vermeer's technique; this one seems like a thinly veiled advertisement for the documentary film.

But that's what you get when you go from Vanity Fair to BoingBoing, I suppose. And I doubt Vanity Fair pays for clicks.

Actually it just said that you can't do "on the fly" color compensating, because the colors would look wrong. It doesn't say why, if you tried it and found your colors off, you could make your color palette before painting, and then ignore what your brain is telling you when you paint it on. Or you could meticulously trace out where you are going to do all your shadings on the canvas, and then paint over that while looking directly at it.

In fact, just thinking about it, there's a problem with the guy's whole argument. If your eye can't see it, what does the use of mirrors matter? You still wouldn't be able to see the change in shade, because you are still using your eye and not film.

ArcadianRefugee:The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it.

That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.

For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.

Wait, are you saying that there are people that can't tell the difference between coke and pepsi?

Don't know why Vermeer couldn't have just done a camera obscura, but tested his color palette before he started painting.

I think it's kind of similar to being under the streetlights that turn everything black and white, it's farking up what you're seeing, and even though you know it is, you can't really compensate. Since painters don't just use 1 red, 1 blue, 1 yellow, etc., if the light is farking up what you're applying, you can't get the subtle changes in color that make things look realistic.Your red will look different than what is actually there, but will look roughly the same for a couple of shades either way.

Corvus:drxym: It's an interesting and arduous project but surprisingly there are quite a noticeable number of differences between the original and the reproduction considering it was so painstaking - heads looking different ways, rug patterns different etc. Not sure if it was intentional or what.

I don't think that's the point. The point is if someone with no real painting skill could accomplish what was done then it is possible it was originally done that way.

If someone "figured it out" then they would have "developed the skill" which means neither Vermeer nor the researcher were somehow unskilled or cheating, as the article implies when it uses the word "cheating."

mesmer242:ArcadianRefugee: The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it.

That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.

For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.

Wait, are you saying that there are people that can't tell the difference between coke and pepsi?

/Throwback Pepsi > Cherry Coke > Pepsi > Coke

I

can't; my taste buds are crap. Some people say things like, "Oh, you don't know what you're missing!" And they're right: I don't know what I'm missing, which seems the far better option. Also, it means I can buy whatever's on sale, rather than claiming "brand loyalty" or whatnot.

nmrsnr:In fact, just thinking about it, there's a problem with the guy's whole argument. If your eye can't see it, what does the use of mirrors matter? You still wouldn't be able to see the change in shade, because you are still using your eye and not film.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the way I understand about how it works is you are only seeing a tiny portion of the the subject at a time, and are matching the color to just that one little section, which gets around the problem. Your eye only plays tricks on you when you are a looking at a large section of similar but not quite the same color. But when you are comparing a tiny portion of section to paint, you have no problem matching the shade.

SmackLT:propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year: http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935

Honestly though guys... Who cares. It is one of the few interesting fark repeats that if someone missed it should get a chance to see it. It's not like this is one of those that crop up every other day.

I actually know an artist that can produce photo realistic paintings without any of these tricks in oil. -She's a friend's mother. She charges about $6000 a painting (at least that was the price years ago). -I've seen her reproduce a scene from memory without any references (pictures, etc.)

That being said, when she's working she *has* a picture she could reference if she wanted, but she told me she considered it cheating and admitted she had to look probably 2-3 times if she got sidetracked with something else while she was working.

She was an extreme introvert. The only reason I met her was that she overheard her son talking about me and she wanted to meet me. We went to lunch (without him and talked for hours - which seemed odd, but whatever). I guess the best way to describe the relationship was that of Sheldon and Leonard's mother (Big Band Theory), except that Leonard in this case was a law school student and an athlete that she didn't seem to have much in common with.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be a mystery or some fancy device. It's quite possible that this artist was just really good at reproducing real life in oil like my friend's mom.

phyrkrakr:SmackLT: propasaurus: Pretty sure it's called "this story is from a year ago, but they're plugging the Blu-Ray that comes out today."

Looks like this was the thread from last year: http://www.fark.com/comments/8039935

Honestly though guys... Who cares. It is one of the few interesting fark repeats that if someone missed it should get a chance to see it. It's not like this is one of those that crop up every other day.

Actually it just said that you can't do "on the fly" color compensating, because the colors would look wrong. It doesn't say why, if you tried it and found your colors off, you could make your color palette before painting, and then ignore what your brain is telling you when you paint it on. Or you could meticulously trace out where you are going to do all your shadings on the canvas, and then paint over that while looking directly at it.

In fact, just thinking about it, there's a problem with the guy's whole argument. If your eye can't see it, what does the use of mirrors matter? You still wouldn't be able to see the change in shade, because you are still using your eye and not film.

In the picture below you can't tell by looking that square A and square B are the exact same shade. If you take a piece of paper and cut 2 holes in it so only A and B are showing, suddenly you can see that they are the same. That is the same effect he was getting using the lenses and mirror, concentrating on a very specific point in the scene.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:nmrsnr: In fact, just thinking about it, there's a problem with the guy's whole argument. If your eye can't see it, what does the use of mirrors matter? You still wouldn't be able to see the change in shade, because you are still using your eye and not film.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the way I understand about how it works is you are only seeing a tiny portion of the the subject at a time, and are matching the color to just that one little section, which gets around the problem. Your eye only plays tricks on you when you are a looking at a large section of similar but not quite the same color. But when you are comparing a tiny portion of section to paint, you have no problem matching the shade.

Yes. He's using a small mirror about two inches in diameter. He compares the colors at the border of the mirror directly over the color he's painting. He basically mixes his paint right on the canvas until the color is perfect.

The movie makes a very compelling case that Vermeer used this technique--which is not cheating--and did not paint by eye with a savant-like ability for photo realism.

Watched the documentary on a flight home from Beijing yesterday. I'd recommend it for a viewing.

Language is not carved in granite, it's fluid and constantly changing, new words come, old words go, it evolves. Any word that communicates effectively a portion of information is a real and useful word. Why is that something to freak out over and rant about?

ArcadianRefugee:The way Vermeer painted this wall is consistent with a photograph. It is not consistent with human vision. If you were standing in the room that Vermeer painted, you would see that wall as a pretty even shade of off-white. The retina in your eyeball does some image processing to minimize the effect of light and shadow. To your eye, the wall appears to have far less contrast than it actually has. And if you can't see it, you can't paint it. But Vermeer, unlike other painters, painted his walls the way a photographic camera would record it.

That may all well be true, but I am not Vermeer. Maybe his eyes (brain) could see the subtle shading mine wash out. That's why he's famed for his paintings and I am not famous for mine.

For instance, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. Those are not hard and fast numbers; some people might see only within 392-698. Some 391-701, or 386-704 or whatever. Point is, [technically] some people can see colors that others cannot. Or hear sounds I cannot if their ears can detect sounds below 20 or above 17,000 Hz (my hearing sucks). Or supertasters, who can tell the difference between milk from grass-fed cattle and that from grain-fed cattle, or Coke from Pepsi.

This doesn't make them somehow "cheaters"; they are simply put together differently, and in a way that may contribute to their success in a field others cannot even enter.

Toss some tetrachromats into that mix and you've got a lot of variables that this experiment doesn't account for. Interesting experiment, though - it might stimulate some people into creating some pretty pictures.

Bennie Crabtree:Corvus: drxym: It's an interesting and arduous project but surprisingly there are quite a noticeable number of differences between the original and the reproduction considering it was so painstaking - heads looking different ways, rug patterns different etc. Not sure if it was intentional or what.

I don't think that's the point. The point is if someone with no real painting skill could accomplish what was done then it is possible it was originally done that way.

If someone "figured it out" then they would have "developed the skill" which means neither Vermeer nor the researcher were somehow unskilled or cheating, as the article implies when it uses the word "cheating."